Which system? Your opinion please (or, Floppy installs Vista Blog)

floppybootstomp

floppybootstomp

sugar 'n spikes
Moderator
Joined
Mar 5, 2002
Messages
20,281
Reaction score
1,794
Ok folks, simply put, which of these two systems do you think would run faster and be more efficient?

Particularly with games in mind?

AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 6400+ Black Edition 3.20GHz

Dual-core Technology
3.20Ghz clock speed (AM2 Socket)
2x1MB L2 Cache
2000 fsb

With

Asus M2N sli deluxe Motherboard

AM2 Socket
Nvidia NF570 sli chipset
Memory speeds 533; 667; 800
Dual memory support

Or

Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 "LGA775 Conroe" 2.40GHz (1066FSB)

Dual Core Technology
2.40GHz clock speed
4MB L2 Cache
1066 fsb

With

Asus P5B Deluxe Motherboard
Intel P965 Express / Intel ICH8R Chipsets
Memory speeds 533; 667; 800
Dual memory support

Both with 4Gb (4 x 1Gb) PC6400 (800) memory; Windows Vista Home Premium 32 Bit and a BFG Nvidia 640Mb 8800GTS.
 
The C2D will be more power efficient, but on performance I wouldn't like to say - at stock I suspect the AMD, but if its OC'd I would edge towards the C2D :confused:

You can probably tell I ain't too sure Flops :D
 
If Ady rekons its that close then my casting vote will be for the cheapest :)
 
I'm with Ady, if you OC then the C2D would be a better system :)
 
Uh - should have said - I don't overclock anymore, can't be bothered :)

So I'm talking about stock systems here.

This is actually a real scenario, I have the AM2 3.2 CPU installed atm with 2Gb RAM and it's absolutely flying through WCG crunching WU's faster than the core 2 duo 6600 ever did.

I am still waiting on the extra RAM and Vista.

My money's on the AM2 but I'm really not sure.

Hence my asking the question :)

Any real input, ignoring cost, overclocking, bias against Vista, and generally any other real bias, is welcomed :)
 
Ignoring cost/OC'ing etc then it has to be the AMD :nod:
 
If you are contemplating AMD, I would suggest looking at the nVidia nForce 590 SLI chipset, if only for the extra PCIe bus lanes & EPP. :thumb:


Asus M2N32 sli deluxe Motherboard will see you on into the future for a wee while longer. ;)

http://www.asus.com/products.aspx?l1=3&l2=101&l3=300&l4=0&model=1553&modelmenu=1

Oh, check Asus for recommended memory, I believe they were in bed with Cosair on this one with EPP. :D
 
Thanks for the advice Mr Mucks :thumb:

But I do actually have those parts I listed in the first post, I've forked out on the AM2 3.2Ghz CPU and another 2Gb of RAM so I'm afraid I won't be buying a new motherboard mostly just to upgrade the chipset, I'm quite happy with This One as well.

I also spent money on Vista :eek:

I looked around Asus' site and couldn't find anything related to them recommending Corsair memory, but I will be using 4 x 1Gb sticks of Corsair 6400C4.

I did note from viewing the forum on my motherboard at the Asus site that sometimes Vista refuses to install with over 3Gb of RAM fitted and showed a link to a Microsoft fix, which I have downloaded. That fix is in a folder on a seperate hard drive together with all the Vista drivers I could think of: Chipset; Network; Sound Card; Video card; Joypad; Joystick; Printer; Scanner; Mouse & Keyboard.

As I'll be using a RAID 0 I've just realised I better check out whether the drivers for that are different, the ones that are loaded to a floppy disk for using during installation. Assuming it's the same as installing XP.

The reason I was asking which system would be best is that - because of the way I have things set up here - I will have to swap Motherboards/CPU's/Video Cards & Sound cards between cases which is a lot of aggro.

It will also mean a fresh install of XP on the machine that will become based around an Intel setup. If I'd left things as they were I could have left the install of XP as it currently is on the AM2 system. Making sense? :D

I tried overclocking my Core 2 Duo 6600 2.4Ghz but only managed to get it to 2.6Ghz before it froze on POST, so I gave up. It currently has OCZ 6400 C5 memory installed.

I decided to give Vista a go because I managed to get all the drivers I needed, I will probably have to upgrade eventually anyway as I'm afraid using just a Linux Distro is impractible for me and also I'll be able to utilise DX10 and 4Gb RAM.

If I left the hardware side of things as they are now it would save me a helluva lot of work but it does seem a shame to not use a faster processor with Vista. I am still thinking about it, however. I now have all the parts I need, just got back from collecting them from the local City Link depot, and was going to start work.

But this hangover :o is dictating otherwise atm, so probably tomorrow.

If I were to install Vista on my machine as it is, it would be very quick and easy but I'd be limited to a 2.4Ghz CPU as opposed to the 3.2Ghz CPU. I wondered if the Intel chip outperformed the AMD chip in other areas apart from pure processor speed, which is why I asked the question at the beginning of this thread.

All things considered, considering the time and effort involved, what would you fellas do? Just install Vista to the Intel machine which makes things quick and easy, or swap all my hardware about and do two fresh installs instead of one?
 
Hmmm, I may have misread, but there is a difference to an Asus M2N sli deluxe & an M2N32 sli deluxe MB ... as you already have the MB, it's a mute point. :)


As for rebuilding, me would, and always have done, a rebuild to get all the "better" components on one PC ... it is after all, what I like about computers. ;)

I would wait for a clearer head though ... I have loads of time. :D

Vista is quite a lot more intelligent in finding its own drivers, had great "fun" learning how to get it to do that on the obscure audio drivers that are now out there for my system. However, one needs access to the net from the start, so Ethernet drivers are an essential item. :thumb:

http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/Windows/en-US/default.mspx

http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/Windows/en-US/maintenance.mspx

http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/Windows/en-US/help/95f70af6-edd6-4f2f-9f02-7d6bdf0190611033.mspx

... have fun!


:user:
 
C2D is the better processor for gaming, but for other tasks it is bottlenecked and AMD's offerings flatten it. Of course other tasks are things like intense CAD work or number crunching or whatever, so how relevant that is to you is questionable.
 
PotGuy said:
C2D is the better processor for gaming, but for other tasks it is bottlenecked and AMD's offerings flatten it. Of course other tasks are things like intense CAD work or number crunching or whatever, so how relevant that is to you is questionable.
Click to expand...

Ah, now this is what I suspected.

My main machine is used mostly for Gaming whereas main machine # 2 is used mostly for video rendering and editing.

If that's the case I may be better off keeping the Core 2 Duo as the main machine which will give it specs of:

Asus P5B Deluxe Motherboard
Core 2 Duo 6600 @ 2.4Ghz
4Gb Corsair 6400 C4 memory
Windows Vista
BFG 8800GTS 640Mb

Which should be fine for Gaming, I think.

I must admit the AMD machine at 3.2Ghz is processing video faster than the single core 2.6Ghz it replaced. It's also wizzing through crunching work units at a good rate of knots.

And I don't crunch on my gaming machine, as it definitely interfered with a few games, notably CoD2.

Interesting temperatures as well. The 2.6Ghz single core ran at 33C max at full tilt whereas this 3.2Ghz dual core is hovering around 48C at 100% with the same cooling. Interestingly, when I snooze BOINC, temp drops to 32C, which is a huge difference.

I think for the sake of convenience, I may just fit the new memory to the Intel machine and install Vista. Perhaps I may be able to overclock it, I shall give it another try.
 
Just a quick question...

I've fitted the 4Gb memory to the Intel machine and of course it's showing as 3Gb in Win XP.

But it's also showing as 3Gb in the BIOS (Asus P5B Deluxe board).

Is that normal?

I've checked all the memory modules are firmly seated.

Will be ready to install Vista soon but may wait til morning as I'm not doing anything tomorrow.

And then we shall see what we shall, what works, what doesn't and how games fare under this OS.
 
I think you need to have the memory remapping activated in the Bios?


Bios>Advanced>Chipset>Northbridge Chipset Configuration>Memory Remap feature :thumb:
 
That done the trick Ady :thumb:

That's something I learnt today then :)

Odd thing is that now Win XP shows 2Gb whereas it showed 3Gb before I enabled Memory Remapping in the BIOS :confused:

There's a fix I may need from MS, Mucks gave me the link, here it is. I'm wondering what I actually need to do to install this fix if I need it, it says this:

To apply this update, you must use the files that are included in this update package to update the Windows installation source files. For information about how to do this, see the OEM preinstall kit (OPK) documentation or the Automated Installation Kit (AIK) documentation.

Now just what is all that about? I have not a clue I'm afraid and there's no link to any clues at MS either as far as I can see.
 
The remapping feature is for use with 64bit OS, which is why it now shows as it does with XP.


I think if you install Vista 64 with only 2GB, then put the other 2 in after the install it should be OK?
 
I have Vista 32 bit. Went for that after weighing up pros and cons and deliberating for quite some time.

But yes, I will try the install with 2Gb, apply all MS updates then add the other 2Gb.
 
Well in my opinion the second one is the best coz nvedia is the best chip set ,it have some awesome graphics ...
 
Back
Top